2 spurs from a Junction Box....worried?

[mikep83]

Hi folks.

I cut one of the cables on my ring circuit, attached the 2 now separate ends to a new 30a junction box, and then run 2 additional spurs from the same junction box, using 32a twin and earth, on the end of each of these new spurs is a twin plug socket with usb.

I did the work with my father in law, who’s an avid DIYer and has been doing diy for 60 years.

We did a really good job, cables cut nice, neat, secure, tested them, and all working.

Due to a rush to get the job done before decorators, I pre installed the new sockets and cabling, ready for the junction, and only then did I realise I should have extended the ring.....it was too late, I had sealed the walls up and could not get another cable in. We used a square 30a MK box, which had ample room for the cables.

These are bedside outlets, not for heavy consuming items.

Some forums and people have now put the fear of god in me that this is dangerous, however I have read mixed opinions (e.g. apparatly 1 spur from any point is the Reg, ok.....so I have 2 on mine, but is this really much different than if I added another junction 10 inches away for my second spur)

Is this really a concern to warrant me ripping it all back out?

It’s a good tidy job.
I know there’s regulations and partP......hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Views?
Many thanks.

 

[MDJ]

Yes I know Mate just before I hit the post button doooooh Funny how you know you have it wrong, but you still can't stop the finger that's hovering over the send button only to realise what you have done, and hope nobody notices your error. And I haven't any alcohol, yet.

P!SS head lol

 

[Pete999]

P!SS head lol

Not true how dare you, go and stand on the naughty step you bad Man

 

[Dangerous Brian]

For those who are worried about overloading terminations by taking two spurs, each to one twin sso from one 30A joint box connected to a ring final cct. Consider a spur from a twin sso on the ring to one twin sso. If these sockets are compared to the two spurs from one joint box you will see the point loading on the rfc is the same in both cases. The load in both cases comes from a single connection to the rfc.

 

[Pete999]

For those who are worried about overloading terminations by taking two spurs, each to one twin sso from one 30A joint box connected to a ring final cct. Consider a spur from a twin sso on the ring to one twin sso. If these sockets are compared to the two spurs from one joint box you will see the point loading on the rfc is the same in both cases. The load in both cases comes from a single connection to the rfc.

One twin 13 Amp Socket out let IS ONE SPUR Brian, not two spurs taken from the same point on a RFC.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Brian's point is exactly the same as the one I made in post #121 that 11 people liked. The key is that the terminals feeding the two spurs are in a junction box, not the back of another socket outlet. The loading is exactly the same with two spurs from one JB, as with one spur from a socket outlet, as in both cases there are two socket outlets loading a single node in the RFC.

In general the regs don't differentiate between an unfused spur taken from a socket outlet and one taken from a junction box. But here, it's relevant because it eliminates any argument about overloading, regardless of any other factors.

 

[Pete999]

Brian's point is exactly the same as the one I made in post #121 that 11 people liked. The key is that the terminals feeding the two spurs are in a junction box, not the back of another socket outlet. The loading is exactly the same with two spurs from one JB, as with one spur from a socket outlet, as in both cases there are two socket outlets loading a single node in the RFC.

In general the regs don't differentiate between an unfused spur taken from a socket outlet and one taken from a junction box. But here, it's relevant because it eliminates any argument about overloading, regardless of any other factors.

Not going there again Lucien, said my piece, was stupid of me to react to Brian's post.

 

[SparkyChick]

*DING* *DING* - Round 2

I think we've done the subject to death and we have concluded that there are two camps... acceptable and not acceptable, and peoples residency in those camps appears to be largely down to interpretation of the regulations and/or their view on whether it's good practice or not.

But one thing I think most of us are agreed on is that under normal circumstances we wouldn't do it this way ourselves.

 

[Dunc N]

You know its a mess so why not do it right so that you have no further worries?

 

[Toneyz]

When was taking a spurred double socket from another stopped 15th to16th?

 

[snipersmith87]

I dont see how putting 2 x JB a foot apart makes any difference electrically provided the JB is sound. The JB is on a leg between 2 points of a ring. The ring cable will carry the same load in each scenario. Theres no danger of overload to the spurs as its 2 x seperate twins off one point of the ring. Wired correctly. Adequate size cable. So why put extra connections in a circuit that doesnt need it??

Completely different to spurring twice off an outlet.

 

[Toneyz]

I dont see how putting 2 x JB a foot apart makes any difference electrically provided the JB is sound. The JB is on a leg between 2 points of a ring. The ring cable will carry the same load in each scenario. Theres no danger of overload to the spurs as its 2 x seperate twins off one point of the ring. Wired correctly. Adequate size cable. So why put extra connections in a circuit that doesnt need it??

Completely different to spurring twice off an outlet.

Nor do I, but if that was the scenario those who say it does not comply would be satisfied by a short piece of 2.5 between two junction boxes.

 

[Octopus]

Nor do I, but if that was the scenario those who say it does not comply would be satisfied by a short piece of 2.5 between two junction boxes.

2 x MF, and an extra piece of cable - yes that would be ideal and then, like the pretty schematic in BS 7671 there would only be 3 cables at each point ....

 

[SparkyChick]

I think it's time to close this thread, it's unlikely any new views will be put forward (as there are essentially only two... it complies and it does not) and well, at 16 pages I think it's run it's course.